Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
OK, this is a rhetorical question that deserves to be closed as "opinion based", but gotta ask. Why do we need to have "27.5 inch" bikes?
If you dig through the specs (they don't come right out and say), this is a 650B rim, which Sheldon quotes as being for "French utility bikes, tandems, and loaded-touring bikes; some older Raleigh and Schwinn mountain bikes", and which is otherwise known as 26 x 1-1/2".
Again - Following up with an opinion from a self confessed conspiracy theorist. Its about the money - follow the profit tree to its roots
When there were only 26" wheels a small LBS needed to have one wheel set in stock, and one sized tire ( maybe 5-10 variations). They would special order specific gear the the customer wanted and could easily stock enough to supply of the shelf something suitable for most customers most of the time. The LBS had a range of MTB in stock - a few (maybe 10 bikes) would cover the requirements for 95% of his customers, and he would target a particular but broad market (Typically either Family and weekend riders, or 'cashed up cost doesn't matter wannabes and elite cyclists).
Now, the small LBS needs to stock 3 wheel sizes, in disc and rim brake style (6 wheel sets). They also need about 50 different tires on the shelve. The number of bikes required to be stocked by the LBS has also increased. He needs at least twice as many on the floor to remain competitive, but that much stock will drive him out of business. This is beyond the capability of a small LBS to do and still remain profitable. Mum and Dad now need to stock 3 different spare tire and tube sizes at home (Dads 29'er, mums 26'er and sons 27.5er').
Then there is the hype - 26'er is old, 29'er is so much better. Followed by "well, you need a 29'er for XC but AM and downhill a 26'er is better - to be a serious cyclist you have to have one of each (with spares of course). Now, we have 27.5 - So, that 29er I sold you last year really is to big, and you know that 26 so last decade, well, have I got the bike for you.... It's only $$$, but I'll throw in a discount cause you are such a valued customer.......
In effect it is being pushed by the larger retailers, who can afford the stock level, to push the small LBS out of business. The elite custom-builders where pricing is less of a concern will do very nicely out of it as well (No competing LBS focused on "reasonable pricing" will drive some people to them).
The net effect of all this choice is that the cost to us will skyrocket as the competition is shut down. We won't have competing LBS that offer personal service (except those that provide for the high end market) and will have to deal with the large, impersonal chain stores. The idea of talking to the mechanic will be seen as quaint, as the salesmen run the front counter. "Why talk the the mechanic, buy a new bike.... "
I believe the changes are mostly (99.99%) profit motivated to get more bikes moving from shop shelves to unused garage ornaments.
Having ridden some of the major wheel sizes:
I can honestly say it depends on what you want to do. I race XC on my 29er because it climbs way better than 26 and runs like a road bike on the flats, but it totally sucks in tight switchbacks due to the large turn radius (and long frame because I'm tall).
My Dirt Jump and All-Mountain bikes are both 26" because I can maneuver the bike a lot better. The AM bike is more on the freeride side so the components were easier to find to make it beefy for that.
I've ridden 650b on trails and found that they mix the 29er and 26er together, it climbs better than 26, but not as well as the 29. It decends better than the 29er and is certainly more playful on the trail too. However, I don't really think it's the end-all, be-all of bike wheels as I didn't jump on abadoning my other bikes.
Personally, I think it's a choice thing, where you find a bike that fits what you want to do and how you want to ride. I'd prefer that biking not become like stock car racing, where all the major pieces are the same and only the small components are different. I think that's the same reason people own two, three, or more bikes, because they don't want a bike that can do evertyhing but doesn't excel at one thing. Yeah, I can take my 150mm FS 26er on XC trails, but it really sucks in spots. Maybe the same bike with 650b size wheels would improve the pedaling parts for me, but someone else might disagree.
I like the comments about bike shops having to carry more stuff, as that's always a challenge for any distributor, but I think the brick-and-mortar shops are becoming more of showrooms nowadays anyway. Flexibility and variability really should be a good thing as it should open up more customers that may have been unhappy with the other, current options.
Following up with an opinion, I believe this is simply about getting people on new bikes.
I don't think the science behind 27.5/ 650Bs make a convincing argument. Giant put a lot together to justify their move to 27.5s (glidepath to only that size in about 2016). There is a scientificish review here on PinkBike.
This article and Giants move was pulled apart on this forum on Vorb - on Vorb it takes a few posts for things to move past general mud slinging, page 2 gets pictures and analysis.
Personally I've never ridden a 27.5 (my sister has one but as it's a "girls" bike I couldn't possibly be seen on it) and my only experience on a 29er is on a FS and I found the ride too sedate compared to my steel HT.
27.5" bikes were introduced after manufacturers found out that they can not produce 29ers with optimal frame geometries for small riders.
Considering one of strong sides for 29er vs 26er - tire contact patch, 27.5er is closer to 26er, so no big gains there.
There is plenty of marketing information and very little actual research available, so one has to be really careful when reading various manufacturer claims.
Firstly, 650B never really went away; Herse kept building 'em, and Sheldon advocated them as a way to get wider tyres, fenders, etc. on tight clearance 700C frames.
Secondly, a number of bicycle advocates such as Heine discovered this and started evangelising the beauty of French bicycles. (Even Sheldon himself could be considered in this group).
Thirdly, La Confrérie des 650 has been complaining for a long time about these new fangled tyre sizes like 26" (559) or 700C dominating the wheel and tyre market. Particularly 559, because it is a marketing gimmick, designed to sell through artificial product differentiation... Though they also wouldn't mind if 27.5" were less marketting, and better at specifying tyre and brake suitability.
